Concluded-PCN - Euro Parking - Gladstones - Defence HELP! Witness statement

Coupon-mad

You will be asking at the hearing for the claim to be struck out, as your preliminary matter.  Gladstones will almost certainly not send anyone, so you are likely to have the Judge listening only to you.

Here is what we hope will happen to you too:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6568658/cpm-gladstone-now-got-a-court-date/p6

1505grandad

".....sent letters to my old address for the PCN which I obviously didn’t receive and my driving licence details were only changed a lot later when I realised i was actually required to update them."

Just checking  -  it is the V5c doc that needs updating re address for pcn's etc  -  has that been actioned?

EightFiveTwoDude

1505grandad said:

".....sent letters to my old address for the PCN which I obviously didn’t receive and my driving licence details were only changed a lot later when I realised i was actually required to update them."

Just checking  -  it is the V5c doc that needs updating re address for pcn's etc  -  has that been actioned?

Yes this has been amended as well. 

EightFiveTwoDude

Received the witness statement today and the main points seems to be the above and the fact that I entered in a contract when I was at the parking lot and that PCN clearly mentioned the breach 

Coupon-mad

Errm... you haven't mentioned having done your WS yet? Both parties had the same deadline.

EightFiveTwoDude

Coupon-mad said:

Errm... you haven't mentioned having done your WS yet? Both parties had the same deadline.

I thought for some reason I had to wait for the WS from the claimant and then send mine….. 


hearing is on 11 July so I still have a couple of days but I quickly drafted the below and sent it to court and claimant 

question is do I post these anywhere because it doesn’t mention any address on the letter for hearing I received 

PARKING SERVICES LIMITED (Claimant)

– AND –

Date: 25 June 2025

Contents

1. INTRODUCTION

2. FACTS AND SEQUENCE OF EVENTS

3. CHALLENGE TO CLAIMANT’S ASSERTIONS

4. UNFAIR TERMS, LACK OF STANDING, AND INADEQUATE NOTICE

5. GENERAL OBSERVATIONS ON INDUSTRY CONDUCT

6. CLAIMANT’S HEARSAY EVIDENCE AND PROCEDURAL FAILINGS

7. CONCLUSION AND REQUEST FOR RELIEF

8. STATEMENT OF TRUTH

9. EXHIBITS

WITNESS STATEMENT OF XXXXX

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 I, XXXXX of 3XXXXXX, make this Witness Statement

(hereinafter referred to as “WS”) in preparation for the hearing scheduled on 11 July 2025 at

Birmingham County Court, in support of my Defence against the Claimant’s claim. The facts below

are true to the best of my belief and my account has been prepared based upon my own knowledge.

1.2 In this WS, I refer to several Exhibits (1–3) included with the evidence provided, citing page and

reference numbers where relevant.

2. PRELIMINARY MATTER: THE CLAIM SHOULD BE STRUCK OUT

2.1 I draw to the attention of the Judge that there are two very recent and persuasive Appeal

judgments to support dismissing or striking out the claim. I believe that dismissing this meritless

claim is the correct course, with the Overriding Objective in mind. Bulk litigators should know better

than to make little or no attempt to comply with the Practice Direction. By continuing to plead cases

with generic auto-fill unspecific wording, private parking firms should not be surprised when courts

strike out their claims using powers pursuant to CPR 3.4, based on the following persuasive

authorities (I append transcripts of both—plus multiple area court 'strike outs' of similar claims—

in Exhibit 1).

2.2 The first recent persuasive appeal judgment in Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref.

E7GM9W44) would indicate the POC fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule

16.4(1)(e) and Practice Direction Part 16.7.5. On the 15th August 2023, in the cited case, HHJ

Murch held that "the particulars of the claim as filed and served did not set out the conduct which

amounted to the breach in reliance upon which the claimant would be able to bring a claim for

breach of contract." (See Exhibit 1).

2.3 The second recent persuasive appeal judgment in Car Park Management Service Ltd v Akande

(Ref. K0DP5J30) would also indicate the POC fails to comply with Part 16. On the 10 May 2024, in

the cited case, HHJ Evans held that "Particulars of Claim have to set out the basic facts upon which a

party relies in order to prove his or her claim." (See Exhibit 1).

2.4 I believe the Claim should be struck out and should not have been accepted by the CNBC due to a

represented parking firm Claimant knowingly breaching basic CPRs. The specifics of this case lack

clarity, as no explicit statement has been provided to indicate which specific term of the alleged

contract was purportedly breached.

3

3. FACTS AND SEQUENCE OF EVENTS

3.1 On the date in question, I drove to Air Nation, an inflatable indoor play area for children, to

collect my young children, aged 4 years and 8 months. Air Nation offers free parking to customers

with booking for a session. See payment to Air Nation (Exhibit 3)

3.2 Upon arrival, the parking area was heavily congested, with no readily available parking spaces

and it was not my intention to park my car anyways. I only stopped outside the entrance to collect my

children but did not park or leave the vehicle unattended.

3.3 I did not observe any clear parking signs from the Claimant (Euro Parking Services Ltd)

indicating a requirement to pay or risk a penalty. The only visible signage was from Air Nation,

prominently stating “FREE PARKING” for customers. (see Exhibit 2)

3.4 Had I seen any clear signage warning of parking terms or penalties, I would have either moved my

vehicle or complied with the instructions. I genuinely did not notice any such signage before stopping

to pick up my children. I have observed a lack of clear and visible signage regarding parking

regulations. The few signs that are present are placed in obscure locations, making them difficult to

notice, including the one at the entrance that was positioned above the height of a bus shelter, far from

a typical line of sight. Additionally, the signage featured very small text, making the terms and

conditions impossible to read from a reasonable distance. The poor placement and legibility of these

signs made it extremely difficult for anybody to be aware of or comply with the parking rules.

(Exhibit 2).

3.5 The sign does not clearly indicate which area it refers to, nor does it provide adequate guidance,

which added to the confusion. Moreover, the entrance is positioned directly next to a bus and cycle

lane, making it extremely unsafe to stop and review any signage when simply entering the premises

without the intention to park. The ambiguity of the sign could reasonably cause uncertainty regarding

the applicable parking restrictions.

3.6 I was not notified of any parking charge until approximately nine months later, at which point I

immediately contacted Air Nation to seek clarification and assistance.

3.7 Air Nation confirmed over the phone that they would have requested cancellation of the penalty

initially as I paid to use their service and would be eligible for free parking at the time of the call. I

believed the matter was resolved. However, when I later provided the PCN reference via email, they

informed me they could no longer intervene due to the significant delay.

3.8 This delay is unfair and deprived me of a reasonable opportunity to challenge the charge or obtain

supporting evidence from Air Nation at the relevant time.

4. CHALLENGE TO CLAIMANT’S ASSERTIONS

4.1 The Claimant alleges that I must have seen their signs and accepted the parking terms. I firmly

deny this. No signs were clearly visible from where I stopped or entered, and the entrance was flanked

by Air Nation’s signage offering free parking, which would reasonably override any contrary

impression.

4

4.2 Any signage, if present, failed to meet the standards of clarity and prominence required by law

and guidance. I was not given a fair or transparent opportunity to review or accept any contractual

terms.

4.3 The Claimant’s Particulars of Claim are vague, generic, and insufficiently particularised, failing to

specify the exact conduct alleged to constitute a breach of contract. This aligns with concerns raised

in persuasive judgments, including:

• Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref: E7GM9W44), where HHJ Murch held that similar

Particulars of Claim did not comply with CPR 16.4;

• CPMS v Akande (Ref: K0DP5J30), where HHJ Evans ruled that Particulars of Claim must

outline the basic facts relied upon.

4.4 As in those cases, the Claimant here has submitted boilerplate particulars, omitting details of the

specific signage, alleged contract terms, or precise breach. On this basis, I respectfully request that the

Court consider striking out the claim under CPR 3.4.

5. UNFAIR TERMS, LACK OF STANDING, AND INADEQUATE NOTICE

5.1 I deny that any contract was formed or that the Claimant had authority to offer or enforce such

terms. I put the Claimant to strict proof of:

• Their legal authority to operate and litigate on that land;

• The exact signage allegedly relied upon;

• Evidence that the signage was prominent, well-lit, unambiguous, and visible from where I

stopped.

5.2 Any purported contract would be unenforceable under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 due to:

a) Lack of clarity and transparent terms;

b) Absence of prominent notice;

c) Failure to meet fairness requirements, particularly in light of Air Nation’s visible “FREE

PARKING” signage.

5.3 The signage, if it existed, was inadequate to form a binding contract, as supported by legal

authorities including:

• Spurling v Bradshaw [1956];

• Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking [1970];

• Vine v Waltham Forest [2000].

5.4 Additionally, the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 limits the maximum recoverable sum. The

Claimant’s additional ‘damages’ or administrative fees are neither justified nor incurred and

constitute double recovery. These fees were not clearly stated or agreed upon.

6. GENERAL OBSERVATIONS ON INDUSTRY CONDUCT

6.1 This case reflects a wider trend of exaggerated, bulk-issued parking claims by private operators.

Private Operators routinely pursues a disproportionate additional fixed sum (inexplicably added per

5

PCN) despite knowing that the will of Parliament is to ban or substantially reduce the

disproportionate 'Debt Fees'. This case is a classic example where the unjust enrichment of

exaggerated fees encourages the 'numbers game' of inappropriate and out-of-control bulk litigation of

weak/archive parking cases. No pre-action checks and balances are likely to have been made to ensure

facts, merit, position of signs/the vehicle, or a proper cause of action.

6.2 The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC) first published its

statutory Parking Code of Practice on 7th February 2022,

here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/private-parking-code-of-practice.

6.3 "Private firms issue roughly 22,000 parking tickets every day, often adopting a labyrinthine

system of misleading and confusing signage, opaque appeals services, aggressive debt collection and

unreasonable fees designed to extort money from motorists."

6.4 Despite legal challenges delaying the Code's implementation (marking it as temporarily

'withdrawn' as shown in the link above), a draft Impact Assessment (IA) to finalise the DLUHC Code

was recently published on 30th July 2023, which has exposed some industry-gleaned facts about

supposed 'Debt Fees'. This is revealed in the Government's analysis, found

here: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/fil

e/1171438/Draft_IA_-Private_Parking_Code_of_Practice.pdf.

6.5 Paragraphs 4.31 and 5.19 reveal that the parking industry has informed the DLUHC that the true

minor cost of what the parking industry likes to call debt recovery or 'enforcement' (pre-action) stage

totals a mere £8.42 per recovery case.

6.6 With that sum in mind, the extant claim has been enhanced by an excessive amount,

disingenuously added as an extra 'fee'. This is believed to be routinely retained by the litigating legal

team and has been claimed in addition to the intended 'legal representatives fees' cap set within the

small claims track rules. This conduct has been examined and found—including in a notably detailed

judgment by Her Honour Judge Jackson, now a specialist Civil High Court Judge on the

Leeds/Bradford circuit—to constitute 'double recovery', and I take that position.

6.7 In support of my contention that the sum sought is unconscionably exaggerated and thus

unrecoverable, attention is drawn to:

• Paras 98, 100, 193, 198 of ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC67 ('the Beavis case');

• ParkingEye Ltd v Somerfield Stores Ltd ChD [2011] EWHC 4023(QB), where the parking

charge was £75, discounted to £37.50 for prompt payment. Whilst £75 was reasonable, HHJ

Hegarty (decision later ratified by the CoA) held in paras 419-428 that unspecified 'admin

costs' inflating a parking charge to £135 was not a true reflection of the cost of a template

letter and "would appear to be penal."

6.8 Claiming costs on an indemnity basis is unfair, per the Unfair Contract Terms Guidance (CMA37,

para 5.14.3), the Government guidance on the CRA, which introduced new requirements for

'prominence' of both contract terms and 'consumer notices'. In a parking context, this includes a test of

fairness and clarity of signage and all notices, letters, and other communications intended to be read

by the consumer.

6

6.9 Section 71 creates a duty upon courts to consider the test of fairness, including (but not limited to)

whether all terms/notices were unambiguously and conspicuously brought to the attention of a

consumer. Signage must be prominent, plentiful, well-placed (and lit in hours of darkness/dusk), and

all terms must be unambiguous and contractual obligations clear.

6.10 The CRA has been breached due to unfair/unclear terms and notices, pursuant to s62 and paying

due regard to examples 6, 10, 14 & 18 of Schedule 2 and the requirements for fair/open dealing and

good faith (NB: this does not necessarily mean there has to be a finding of bad faith).

6.11 Now for the first time, the DLUHC's draft IA exposes that template 'debt chaser' stage costs less

than £9. This shows that HHJ Jackson was right all along in Excel v Wilkinson (see Exhibit 9).

7. CLAIMANT’S HEARSAY EVIDENCE AND PROCEDURAL FAILINGS

7.1 I anticipate the Claimant may rely on a witness statement from a legal assistant or paralegal,

which would constitute hearsay based on second-hand information and lacking direct knowledge.

This contravenes:

• CPR 32.2; and

• Practice Direction 32.18.2, which require witnesses to distinguish between personal

knowledge and second-hand information.

7.2 The use of such generic witness statements undermines the credibility and procedural validity of

the Claimant’s case.

8. CONCLUSION AND REQUEST FOR RELIEF

8.1 I maintain that I did not park in breach of any terms, that no contract was formed, and that the

signage was wholly inadequate.

8.2 The Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued by the Claimant fails to meet legal requirements, as it

does not clearly specify the alleged breach or how any contract was formed. Combined with the lack

of clear and prominent signage, this renders the alleged breach ambiguous and unenforceable.

8.3 Given the unclear and non-compliant signage, the PCN’s failure to articulate a valid breach, and

the Claimant’s failure to meet the burden of proof, I respectfully request that the Honourable

Court dismiss the Claimant’s claim in its entirety.

8.4 I ask the judge to read the persuasive Judgment from His Honour Judge Murch (August 2023) in

the Civil Enforcement v Chan case, and deliver the same outcome given this Claimant has submitted a

similarly vague POC. It is worth noting that in the Civil Enforcement v Chan case the POC, while still

ambiguous, did contain a subtle indication of the alleged contravention, specifically regarding the

duration of the parking on the premises. In contrast, the POC in this case lacks even a minimal effort

to hint at the nature of the alleged violation. In the Civil Enforcement v Chan case, full costs were

awarded to the motorist and the claim was struck out.

8.5 I further request the Court to award:

a) My standard witness costs under CPR 27.14;

7

b) Travel costs to and from Court (£30);

c) Printing, postage, and stationery costs related to defending this claim (£40);

d) Time taken off work (5 hours Å~ £29.60 = £148).

I request that the court considers these costs in its judgment, given the claimant's unreasonable

behaviour in pursuing this claim without merit.

9. STATEMENT OF TRUTH

I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true. I understand that proceedings for

contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement

in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.

EightFiveTwoDude

Any feedback on above? 

EightFiveTwoDude

Hi all 

Quick question  - are we able to send a updated and better version of a WS to the court and claimant ?

EightFiveTwoDude

Hi all 

Quick question  - are we able to send a updated and better version of a WS to the court and claimant ?

EightFiveTwoDude

Could someone advise on the above? PLEASE ?